Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9774

Dr. Tawny Hiatt was hired as a Staff Psychologist and Training Director at the University of Denver Health and Counseling Center in 2011; she supervised interns and post‑doctoral fellows.
She entered a romantic relationship with Dr. Abby Coven, who had been supervised by Hiatt in a private practice context; supervisees learned of the relationship and raised concerns that Hiatt blurred supervisory boundaries.
After an "open meeting" with supervisors and trainees, at least three supervisees ceased supervision with Hiatt; DU investigated and concluded her conduct raised ethical concerns and evidence of poor supervisory boundaries.
On February 22, 2013 DU offered Hiatt options; she accepted demotion to Staff Psychologist/Outreach Coordinator with a $2,000 pay reduction and a requirement of outside counseling before possible reinstatement to supervision.
Hiatt later filed internal EEO complaints and an EEOC charge alleging sex discrimination and retaliation; DU denied reinstatement to supervisory duties, she took medical leave, returned with additional workplace requirements, and resigned in May 2014.
The district court granted summary judgment for DU on Title VII and Title IX discrimination and retaliation claims; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Hiatt failed to show DU’s proffered reasons were pretextual.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Demotion from Training Director to Outreach Coordinator	Hiatt: demotion was sex discrimination/retaliation; reasons were pretextual	DU: demotion prompted by supervisee upheaval, ethical "grey area," and problematic supervisory style	Court: DU provided legitimate reasons and Hiatt failed to show pretext; summary judgment affirmed
Failure to reinstate supervisory duties	Hiatt: DU ignored outside consultant recommendation and used subjective criteria; pretext for discrimination/retaliation	DU: Reasonable to weigh consultant input against supervisee feedback and ongoing concerns about boundaries	Court: DU consistently explained reasons; no evidence of pretext; summary judgment affirmed
Constructive discharge (resignation)	Hiatt: working conditions after complaints were intolerable, forcing resignation	DU: conditions (extra hours, timeliness requirements, documentation) were not objectively intolerable	Held: No constructive discharge; conditions not objectively intolerable
Alleged differential treatment/retaliation after complaints	Hiatt: subjected to disparate requirements and scrutiny after filing EEO/EEOC complaints	DU: actions were supervisory/administrative responses to performance, attendance, and credibility issues; timing and consistency undermine retaliation claim	Held: Plaintiff failed to identify similarly situated comparators or show DU’s reasons were pretextual; retaliation claim fails

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (sets out burden‑shifting framework for proving discrimination with indirect evidence)
Burlington N. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (defines materially adverse action for retaliation claims)
Swackhammer v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 493 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (employer’s honest but mistaken reasons do not alone establish pretext)
Johnson v. Weld County, 594 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2010) (pretext shown when employer’s reasons are incoherent, weak, inconsistent, or contradictory)
Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard and viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Piercy v. Maketa, 480 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2007) (employer’s good‑faith belief in stated reasons precludes finding of pretext)